HIIT vs. Standard Elliptical run (calories?)

megahurt

I normally do a standard 40-minute "run" on the elliptical. I enter that into the MyFitnessPal app and it says I burned about 420-ish calories.

I've been reading all about HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training), and everything pretty much says that you burn more calories doing it that way, in a shorter time. Well today I tried it. At the end of a 20-minute HIIT session on the machine, I was WAY more tired, sweating, and breathing hard than after my normal 40-minute run.

However, I see no way to enter that into the app. If I just enter 20 minutes, it says I burned half as many calories, despite the fact that I clearly worked harder and research says I should have burned more calories.

So how can I enter this into the app for a more accurate result?

megahurt

Whoa, this got buried really fast. =P

mmapags

The primary benefit to HIIT is EPOC or what is commonly refered to as afterburn. It's the increased calorie burn you experience after your workout. It is higher for HIIT (or lasts longer resulting in a higher calorie burn) than for Steady State Cardio. The net outcome of a 20 minute cardio said is comparable to 45 to 50 minute steady state cardio session when EPOC is factored in.

The main benefit is it's more efficient time wise, trains the type2 fast twitch muscle fibers, and can increase VO2max. If you are doing it for a higher overall burn than your traditional cardio session, the difference is not significant.

megahurt

Well, I don't really mind the 40-minute run, but I guess 20 is better. I don't mind pushing hard. I guess I'll just have to figure out what works best for me. Thanks.

Azdak

You don't even necessarily burn more calories. A lot of the claims for the benefits of HIIT are wildly overstated. HIIT is the current exercise fad and so every Joe and Jane Trainer is trying to promote themselves as being "HIITier than thou".

Some of research suggests shows that there is small benefit of increased fat loss with HIIT (real HIIT, not silly stuff like "Tabata Ab Crunches"). Speculation is that the increased catecholamine release that occurs with HIIT is the underlying mechanism for the (modestly) increased fat loss.

The calorie research varies widely, but, to this point, the majority of research does not support the idea that the increased EPOC after HIIT is not that substantial, and is nowhere near enough to match the calories burned during steady-state workout.

The main benefits of HIIT are: 1) efficiency--you get a lot of fitness benefits and a good calorie burn in a shorter period of time; 2) Fitness: if you can tolerate the effort, it has been well known for over 60 years that HIIT can be very effective at increasing maximum aerobic fitness level.

Including higher intensity workouts into an overall routine is a good idea. They will help to increase fitness and having a higher fitness level means you can work harder overall and thus burn more calories.

Working at the intensity levels required for true HIIT --the 90%-100% effort levels-- can take the benefits up another notch, but also requires ability and effort that many people are either unable or are unwilling to do.

Which is why my personal position is that, while including all-out HIIT has some benefits, I am not sure they are that much greater that it is justified trying to push HIIT on everyone in the general population. Doing higher-intensity (80%-85% effort) intervals or tempo workouts will suit most people just fine and is much more tolerable.

And don't misunderstand me--I am not anti-HIIT. I just tend to think in terms of what is most effective for the most diverse group of people when I make my general recommendations.

Azdak

Well, I don't really mind the 40-minute run, but I guess 20 is better. I don't mind pushing hard. I guess I'll just have to figure out what works best for me. Thanks.

Neither is "better". They both have separate types of benefits and both should be included in your routine.